FBI possibly put a spy in Trump campaign

The source for this is an Op ED in the Wall st journal, but its behind a pay wall so I linked a different source.

Some of the sources are anonymous and as always should be taken with a grain of salt, and it is an op ed, but the implications if this is true are
staggering.

(I am quoting a lot, but I feel the everything I am quoting is relevant material.)

Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified
documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation
of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In
a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was
“wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should
have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators
last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed
that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it
even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human
lives.”

This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals
with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When
government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency.
Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some
capacity with the Trump campaign.

This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew
about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the
FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting
information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to
infiltrate the Trump campaign.

Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the
drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim
Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele
dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?

And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t
being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been
spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage
international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the
highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier
author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a
former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be
irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never
get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid

This is more than wiretapping, or unmasking, or any of the other things we have seen so far.

This would be the FBI sending in a spy on their payroll to spy on the trump campaign. This would be a level of abuse so egregious that it would be
unheard of.

The repercussions of this would be astounding. The threshold for the FBI to have a human spy in a Presidential campaign should have to be so
extremely high that it would be almost impossible. I cant even imagine a scenario when this should happen.

And as the article says, if their was a spy, when was he planted? Was it based off of just the george Papdoulus story, or the dossier? Or was it
before then?

And as usual, the FBI and DOJ claim they cant give congress the info because it will hurt national security. It was the same thing they said about
the memos, which was a blatant lie.

Congress needs to get access to this stuff immediately.

Everyday more evidence comes out making the intel community and the FBI look bad, and if there is any truth to this story, it would be by far the
biggest development so far.

edit on 10-5-2018 by Grambler because: I changed te title from "mole" to "spy" because I realized some people may
not know what a mole is

I was reading this part of the WSJ article that said
this person was a U.S. Citizen.

The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s
request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion
probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy
for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact
in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

But in any case, this is beyond words, and this should not
be allowed to be covered up any further. I still think we
need someone to investgate these crimes, a second special
counsel. I know Sessions has appointed someone but can
we trust any of this? I think Congressional oversight should
be imperative at this point.

originally posted by: Grambler
But why would they then need a fisa warrant to spy on him?

The term you are looking for is parallel construction.

a law enforcement process of building a parallel—or separate—evidentiary basis for a criminal investigation in order to conceal how an
investigation actually began.

A person (civilian) acting on their own (in general) with no ties to law enforcement are not subject to the same legal constraints an official
informant is while acting under the direction of law enforcement. An official informant who is used in court proceedings has to have a history of
established reliability. That history needs to be documented (usually via reports / report notes - redacted). If an informant is directed to take an
action it can run into the issues of coercion or entrapment.

Foreign assets would be able to avoid legal process to appear in court or it could be argued that using them would compromise national security
operations, with the inclination being to accept and admit the testimony in one form or another without having the person present in court.

Either way the way the Obama admin acted is a disgrace and an affront to our Republic...

We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might
damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable,
given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation.
Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It
was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter
deeply.

And here is the author saying she thinks she knows who it is, but like a good journalist, wont publish a name until she has confirmation.

I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore
be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will
never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid

She also says Nunes and Gowdy were able to dig up a name, implying they know who this person is as well.

I dont think its Carter Page. He has already been outed as an FBI informant and his name is already out there. I think it is someone else OR its a
ploy to try and salvage this sham of an investigation by claiming someone new and unknown is reporting the same evidence as others.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.